Trump, Israel & Iran: How US Interests Were Sold for Political Gain | Daily Sabah
WASHINGTON — Three weeks after President Donald Trump authorized a series of strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in late February 2026, a growing chorus of lawmakers and analysts are questioning the rationale for the operation, with mounting evidence suggesting Iran lacked the imminent nuclear capability the administration cited as justification. The escalating conflict, initially framed as a preemptive measure to avert a “nuclear holocaust,” is now increasingly viewed as a strategic maneuver driven by Israeli interests and concerns over domestic energy prices ahead of midterm elections.
The shift in perception follows a series of contradictory statements from administration officials. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently testified before Congress that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been “obliterated” by U.S. Strikes, yet declined to confirm whether Iran posed an “imminent” threat prior to the attacks, as claimed by the President. This ambiguity has fueled speculation that the decision to engage Iran was based on flawed intelligence or, worse, a deliberate misrepresentation of facts.
President Trump has repeatedly asserted that he prevented a nuclear catastrophe by both terminating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – and authorizing military action. “If I didn’t terminate Obama’s horrible deal, the Iran nuclear deal, you would’ve had nuclear holocaust,” Trump stated earlier this week, echoing similar claims made in the wake of the strikes. He shared an article on Truth Social claiming his actions had “prevented another Holocaust in both America and Israel.”
Yet, these assertions are being challenged by growing skepticism. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a recent exchange with reporters, defended the U.S.-Israeli cooperation in Iran, stating, “Under President Trump’s visionary leadership, America and Israel are acting together in Iran with great determination and unprecedented strength.” He dismissed criticism that the U.S. Was drawn into the conflict by Israel, asking, “Does anyone really think that someone can tell President Trump what to do?” Netanyahu’s comments came shortly after Trump reportedly rebuked him for authorizing an attack on Iranian oil facilities, fearing a backlash from the “Create America Great Again” base due to rising gas prices.
Sources indicate that Israel subsequently claimed responsibility for the attack on the Asaluyeh gas compound, stating they acted independently and complied with Trump’s request to halt further attacks. This admission has raised concerns about the extent to which Israeli strategic objectives are influencing U.S. Foreign policy. The dynamic echoes past instances where Netanyahu has successfully leveraged his relationship with Trump, as exemplified by the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s experience of having ammunition deliveries halted after challenging Trump publicly.
The political fallout is already being felt in the United States. Republicans are facing increasing pressure to defend the administration’s actions, particularly as gasoline prices surge. The situation has prompted some conservative commentators, like David French of The New York Times, to question whether “military excellence” can compensate for “Trump’s incompetence.” Former Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s earlier warnings of an “imminent” Iranian threat and predictions of Israeli military action are now under intense scrutiny.
Experts warn of the broader implications of the conflict. Stephen Walt, a columnist at Foreign Policy and co-author of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” argues that the Israel lobby bears responsibility for the current crisis. Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares have warned that the situation could escalate into a wider conflict involving multiple nuclear powers, bringing the world closer to “nuclear annihilation.” Trump initially justified the strikes by claiming Iran was just “one month” away from developing a nuclear weapon, a claim that now appears increasingly dubious.
Lydia Polgreen, an opinion columnist at The New York Times, characterized Trump’s approach as rooted in a “fantasy world” where America is “untouchable” and consequences do not apply. She suggests that Trump views himself as a “spectator to events he himself has set in motion,” lacking genuine investment in the outcome. Germany’s foreign minister has cautioned that a wider war with Iran could trigger a global fossil-fuel crisis.
As the midterm elections approach, the administration faces a critical juncture. With questions mounting about the justification for the conflict and the true beneficiaries of the escalating tensions, the future of U.S. Policy in the Middle East remains uncertain. The White House has yet to articulate a clear endgame, leaving allies and adversaries alike to speculate about its next move.